Boston can always trade D.Jordan for an expiring + additional assets in a subsequent move.

Take D.Jordan.

Yeah, I would think that Jordan has some value in a 3-way.

Only reason to do that instead of Jordan is if Danny is convinced he can get enough cap room to get an impact FA this coming offseason. Otherwise why not take Jordan?

Maybe the Clips won't give them both up....

Then you hang up on them. We're not getting a high enough lottery pick to be worth tanking at this point.

I probably would, because I like Jordan. But that doesn't mean Ainge would. It sounds like he values Bledsoe much more highly than csbloggers do, and it could be that they'd prefer cap flexibility to Jordan.

If they can get Millsap for Bledsoe and Odom or even Butler, it could be that they'll stand firm on not giving up both Jordan and Bledsoe for KG, even if he's the superior (but far older) player.

Boston can always trade D.Jordan for an expiring + additional assets in a subsequent move.

Take D.Jordan.

Yeah, I would think that Jordan has some value in a 3-way.

A deal including Jordan was bad (mostly because of Jordan's contract). A deal including Odom is worse.

I don't know. To me it would depend on how many picks the Clippers are willing to send along if Odom was included instead of Jordan, especially if a first rounder was for 2014. Also, it could depend what else you're trading. If Pierce is also heading out (which seems likely in a universe where KG is traded), and you're also able to clear out Bass and Terry, for primarily players on rookie deals, expirings, and draft picks, you could create enough flexibility next off-season to make a run at a major free agent. In that case, Jordan's contract would definitely be a drag, because then you have to get involved with sign-and-trades, instead of just getting the player directly from free agency. That first bit of expiring contract isn't very valuable at all from the Celtics vantage point, but if combined with other deals, could become quite valuable indeed.

A Clippers pick is worth next to nothing, given that it's unlikely to be better than the mid 20s.

Also, I'm not sure where you're going with 30+ million committed to Rondo, Green and Jordan. You can't just "clear everyone off the books", you have cap holds, and someone has to actually suit up for the games.

It's just not going to work this way.

I was advocating for Odom instead of Jordan, in the universe of also trading away Pierce, Bass, and JET. Cap holds are relatively meaningless, as the point of acquiring expiring contracts to clear future cap space is that you would renounce the players once you've got a free agent to sign. I mean, they exist, but if you're acquiring Lamar Odom because he's not under contract next year, then renouncing him should not be a hurdle at all.

In this world, Boston waives Jefferson next summer using the stretch provision, and renounces all their cap holds. They'd have just under $43 million under contract assigned to nine players, could almost certainly sign a max player for the frontcourt, a room exception for depth, and/or could trade one of their four relatively inexpensive but useful guards for a similarly priced 4 or 5. They would also have 2 2014 first rounders, and would have been under the luxury tax two years in a row, which would help them avoid the repeater penalty in the long run.

Not saying this is remotely likely, because few message board designed trades are, but in this universe I'd rather have Odom in a trade instead of Jordan.

EDIT: Forgot Minimum roster size holds, which would bring the committed amount to just under $44 million at the beginning of free agency. Still, that should create room for a max contract unless the cap level is lower than expected the $60 mil (and I personally think it will be higher than the $60 million most are projecting. More like $63 mil.)

Boston can always trade D.Jordan for an expiring + additional assets in a subsequent move.

Take D.Jordan.

Yeah, I would think that Jordan has some value in a 3-way.

A deal including Jordan was bad (mostly because of Jordan's contract). A deal including Odom is worse.

I don't know. To me it would depend on how many picks the Clippers are willing to send along if Odom was included instead of Jordan, especially if a first rounder was for 2014. Also, it could depend what else you're trading. If Pierce is also heading out (which seems likely in a universe where KG is traded), and you're also able to clear out Bass and Terry, for primarily players on rookie deals, expirings, and draft picks, you could create enough flexibility next off-season to make a run at a major free agent. In that case, Jordan's contract would definitely be a drag, because then you have to get involved with sign-and-trades, instead of just getting the player directly from free agency. That first bit of expiring contract isn't very valuable at all from the Celtics vantage point, but if combined with other deals, could become quite valuable indeed.

A Clippers pick is worth next to nothing, given that it's unlikely to be better than the mid 20s.

Also, I'm not sure where you're going with 30+ million committed to Rondo, Green and Jordan. You can't just "clear everyone off the books", you have cap holds, and someone has to actually suit up for the games.

It's just not going to work this way.

I was advocating for Odom instead of Jordan, in the universe of also trading away Pierce, Bass, and JET. Cap holds are relatively meaningless, as the point of acquiring expiring contracts to clear future cap space is that you would renounce the players once you've got a free agent to sign. I mean, they exist, but if you're acquiring Lamar Odom because he's not under contract next year, then renouncing him should not be a hurdle at all.

In this world, Boston waives Jefferson next summer using the stretch provision, and renounces all their cap holds. They'd have just under $43 million under contract assigned to nine players, could almost certainly sign a max player for the frontcourt, a room exception for depth, and/or could trade one of their four relatively inexpensive but useful guards for a similarly priced 4 or 5. They would also have 2 2014 first rounders, and would have been under the luxury tax two years in a row, which would help them avoid the repeater penalty in the long run.

Not saying this is remotely likely, because few message board designed trades are, but in this universe I'd rather have Odom in a trade instead of Jordan.

Golden State has ZERO reason to be involved in that deal.

I think people are forgetting something. The only reason the Clippers would be interested in swapping Bledsoe/Jordan for KG in the first place is because Chris Paul isn't signed longterm.

If they get KG and win a title, the chances of resigning Paul almost certainly go up. And if they don't resign him, they gain salary flexibility from exchanging Jordan's deal for KG's.

If Paul were already under a long-term deal, the Clippers would have to be insane to trade two young talents for a guy who might only play 30 games for the Clips and then retire.

Odom worked out real well in Dallas..do not go near that knucklehead...we are better now than with all the possible trades put out on this board--just some really stupid stuff being discussed! See who retires after this run and what free agents will be available.

Logged

Days up and down they come, like rain on a conga drum, forget most, remember some, don't turn none away. Townes Van Zandt

Boston can always trade D.Jordan for an expiring + additional assets in a subsequent move.

Take D.Jordan.

Yeah, I would think that Jordan has some value in a 3-way.

A deal including Jordan was bad (mostly because of Jordan's contract). A deal including Odom is worse.

I don't know. To me it would depend on how many picks the Clippers are willing to send along if Odom was included instead of Jordan, especially if a first rounder was for 2014. Also, it could depend what else you're trading. If Pierce is also heading out (which seems likely in a universe where KG is traded), and you're also able to clear out Bass and Terry, for primarily players on rookie deals, expirings, and draft picks, you could create enough flexibility next off-season to make a run at a major free agent. In that case, Jordan's contract would definitely be a drag, because then you have to get involved with sign-and-trades, instead of just getting the player directly from free agency. That first bit of expiring contract isn't very valuable at all from the Celtics vantage point, but if combined with other deals, could become quite valuable indeed.

A Clippers pick is worth next to nothing, given that it's unlikely to be better than the mid 20s.

Also, I'm not sure where you're going with 30+ million committed to Rondo, Green and Jordan. You can't just "clear everyone off the books", you have cap holds, and someone has to actually suit up for the games.

It's just not going to work this way.

I was advocating for Odom instead of Jordan, in the universe of also trading away Pierce, Bass, and JET. Cap holds are relatively meaningless, as the point of acquiring expiring contracts to clear future cap space is that you would renounce the players once you've got a free agent to sign. I mean, they exist, but if you're acquiring Lamar Odom because he's not under contract next year, then renouncing him should not be a hurdle at all.

In this world, Boston waives Jefferson next summer using the stretch provision, and renounces all their cap holds. They'd have just under $43 million under contract assigned to nine players, could almost certainly sign a max player for the frontcourt, a room exception for depth, and/or could trade one of their four relatively inexpensive but useful guards for a similarly priced 4 or 5. They would also have 2 2014 first rounders, and would have been under the luxury tax two years in a row, which would help them avoid the repeater penalty in the long run.

Not saying this is remotely likely, because few message board designed trades are, but in this universe I'd rather have Odom in a trade instead of Jordan.

Golden State has ZERO reason to be involved in that deal.

I think people are forgetting something. The only reason the Clippers would be interested in swapping Bledsoe/Jordan for KG in the first place is because Chris Paul isn't signed longterm.

If they get KG and win a title, the chances of resigning Paul almost certainly go up. And if they don't resign him, they gain salary flexibility from exchanging Jordan's deal for KG's.

If Paul were already under a long-term deal, the Clippers would have to be insane to trade two young talents for a guy who might only play 30 games for the Clips and then retire.

Mike

I would say Golden State has some reason to be involved in that deal. Firstly, the rumors of Golden State being interested in Pierce had to come from somewhere. Golden State has about as much salary flexibility as we do to take on Pierce, so in order to acquire him, the salaries would need to closely match. Furthermore, if you put that trade into trade machine, it has Golden State coming ahead by 8 wins. Obviously one should take the trade machine with a grain of salt, but coming out +8 means that a rationale can be made.

In this world, Boston waives Jefferson next summer using the stretch provision, and renounces all their cap holds. They'd have just under $43 million under contract assigned to nine players, could almost certainly sign a max player for the frontcourt, a room exception for depth, and/or could trade one of their four relatively inexpensive but useful guards for a similarly priced 4 or 5. They would also have 2 2014 first rounders, and would have been under the luxury tax two years in a row, which would help them avoid the repeater penalty in the long run.

Not saying this is remotely likely, because few message board designed trades are, but in this universe I'd rather have Odom in a trade instead of Jordan.

EDIT: Forgot Minimum roster size holds, which would bring the committed amount to just under $44 million at the beginning of free agency. Still, that should create room for a max contract unless the cap level is lower than expected the $60 mil (and I personally think it will be higher than the $60 million most are projecting. More like $63 mil.)

If and when Garnett and Pierce retire, you're going to be exactly at the same spot cap-wise.

And the type of young, cheap talent you could add in to justify a wholesale of this magnitude simply isn't on the table.

In this world, Boston waives Jefferson next summer using the stretch provision, and renounces all their cap holds. They'd have just under $43 million under contract assigned to nine players, could almost certainly sign a max player for the frontcourt, a room exception for depth, and/or could trade one of their four relatively inexpensive but useful guards for a similarly priced 4 or 5. They would also have 2 2014 first rounders, and would have been under the luxury tax two years in a row, which would help them avoid the repeater penalty in the long run.

Not saying this is remotely likely, because few message board designed trades are, but in this universe I'd rather have Odom in a trade instead of Jordan.

EDIT: Forgot Minimum roster size holds, which would bring the committed amount to just under $44 million at the beginning of free agency. Still, that should create room for a max contract unless the cap level is lower than expected the $60 mil (and I personally think it will be higher than the $60 million most are projecting. More like $63 mil.)

If and when Garnett and Pierce retire, you're going to be exactly at the same spot cap-wise.

And the type of young, cheap talent you could add in to justify a wholesale of this magnitude simply isn't on the table.

I'm not making a rationale to trade. I'm saying that in certain situations it makes sense to prefer Odom to Jordan. Clearly, the Celtics are strongly considering trading both KG and Pierce, and are specifically considering trading to KG to the Clippers. The premise was to get back Odom instead of Jordan. My argument is that if you also are able to trade Bass and Terry, and get back mostly expiring contracts, you could potentially create enough room to pursue a max free agent, in which case maybe it would make sense to pass on Deandre Jordan. I'm frankly not in love with the Clippers deal at all, because most of the value comes in the form of Eric Bledsoe, who is superfluous on next year's roster with a healthy Rondo. But that seems to be the main option on the table for the Celtics.